The myth of American energy independence

In this country we are forced to burn our food for fuel. Since the government mandated in 2005 that ethanol be added to gasoline, we’ve burned somewhere around 40 billion bushels of corn — about a third of our total output. While ethanol advocates will tell you it reduces carbon dioxide emissions anywhere from 19-50 percent, the true lifecycle emissions from both production and usage is equal to or greater than gasoline.

So in truth ethanol provides no carbon credit, is less fuel efficient and costs us more. And the price of corn has tripled, causing meat and poultry prices to skyrocket. As the cost of ethanol increases, so do gasoline prices — and the profits of corn farmers and ethanol producers.

Politicians such as Sen. Charles Grassley, a Republican from the Iowa corn belt, will tell you ethanol has been good for America because it reduces our reliance on foreign oil.

Right. Maybe in the same sense that any other alternative energy has. But does anyone believe Grassley, if he was a senator from the West Virginia coal belt, would be singing the same praises?

Federal subsidies, amounting to $20 billion, were discontinued just last year. How much of our gasoline price raises this year can be attributed to the increases in ethanol prices? How much more are we paying for corn, meat and poultry? Tax credits are gone but the system is entrenched. The Renewable Fuel Standard Law of 2007 mandates that the amount of plant-based gas additives must continue to increase, regardless of the loss of subsidies or cost at the pump. And while Congress may have rescinded credits, the wily Obama administration still hands out big grants to biofuel startups.

So here we go again with misguided government regulations that try to usurp the free market and play to business favorites. Consider the case of Celanese, a Texas company that makes ethanol not from food crops but from abundant natural gas. Its gas-to-liquids and coal-to-liquids technology could revolutionize the fuel industry in this country. Problem is, it can’t compete. Its product is derived from fossil fuels and mandates are for biomass. Too bad. Celanese has taken its technology to China.

Then there’s the inconvenient Swedish startup HydroInfra Technologies. Its unique scrubber for fossil fuel plant emissions makes production “climate neutral.” It is able to create hydro nano gas from water and easily incinerate carbon emissions and pollution into oblivion. Poof.

Still, we move in the opposite direction, forcing industries to embrace alternative energies that are half baked. Since the U.S. military is the largest consumer of energy, it’s prime for government mischief. Obama’s Executive Order 13514 mandates all new Army buildings be “net zero” with self-sustainable energy production by 2030. The order contains no financial considerations or cost comparisons to conventional energy technologies. (There’s good reason solar energy produces a paltry 0.05 percent of our electricity, but whatever. Just do it). Now dozens of facilities have been constructed with thousands of solar panels erected above ground and miles of geothermal pipes trenched in below — with a return on investment that will be measured in decades.

The progressive line for this charade used to be all about “global warming,” then “climate change.” It has now morphed into “national security.” No matter the cause, politicians are gaming the system and it has nothing to do with America’s energy independence.